mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

What Does the Server See? Understanding Privacy Leakage from Large Language Models in Split Inference

arXiv 2605.23158 ↗First posted 22 May 2026cs.CR cs.CL cs.LGcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The deployment of large language models (LLMs) on resource-constrained devices remains challenging, spurring interest in split inference, where models are partitioned between client and server to reduce computational burden and enhance privacy by transmitting only intermediate activations. However, the privacy-preserving capabilities of split inference, particularly in the context of LLMs, have not been exhaustively investigated. To fill this gap, we introduce ActInv, which solves an intermediate activation matching problem to reconstruct the client's input. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that ActInv achieves high-fidelity reconstructions, even in the presence of common perturbation-based defenses such as Gaussian noise injection and activation sparsification. To systematically understand this vulnerability, we develop Perturbation Amplification Factor (PAF), a metric for quantifying a layer's inherent resistance to reconstruction. Our analysis reveals that privacy vulnerability is not uniform across layers, with some layers being highly susceptible to leakage while others offer natural resistance. Furthermore, we demonstrate that defense effectiveness can be significantly improved by calibrating perturbation directions to maximize reconstruction error during backpropagation. Building on these insights, we design PriPert and conduct comprehensive evaluations, covering privacy, utility, and computational overhead, to demonstrate its effectiveness.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 May 2026.

Builds on

16 of 40 references.

References · 16

  1. 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,189
  2. 2025SmolLM2: When Smol Goes Big -- Data-Centric Training of a Small Language Modelcited by 335
  3. 2023Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Modelscited by 285
  4. 2022Explanations from Large Language Models Make Small Reasoners Bettercited by 124
  5. 2017Distributed Deep Neural Networks over the Cloud, the Edge and End Devicescited by 120
  6. 2020Unleashing the Tiger: Inference Attacks on Split Learningcited by 105
  7. 2021Does BERT Pretrained on Clinical Notes Reveal Sensitive Data?cited by 93
  8. 2023Bag of Tricks for Training Data Extraction from Language Modelscited by 70
  9. 2024Signed-Prompt: A New Approach to Prevent Prompt Injection Attacks Against LLM-Integrated Applicationscited by 54
  10. 2022Gradient Obfuscation Gives a False Sense of Security in Federated Learningcited by 39
  11. 2023Ethicist: Targeted Training Data Extraction Through Loss Smoothed Soft Prompting and Calibrated Confidence Estimationcited by 36
  12. 2025Language Models are Injective and Hence Invertiblecited by 35
4 more
  1. 2024Unveiling the Vulnerability of Private Fine-Tuning in Split-Based Frameworks for Large Language Models: A Bidirectionally Enhanced Attackcited by 18
  2. 2025Depth Gives a False Sense of Privacy: LLM Internal States Inversioncited by 17
  3. 2025Prompt Inference Attack on Distributed Large Language Model Inference Frameworkscited by 14
  4. 2024Evaluating LLM-based Personal Information Extraction and Countermeasurescited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.